form_army

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the combat strength change and prerequisites but omits details like whether merge_unit_id is consumed, any promotions lost, error conditions, or the shape of the output. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus a standalone requirement line, front-loaded and without any superfluous text. Every sentence serves a purpose, achieving maximum conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (form army) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core mechanics: prerequisite, precondition, and effect. It could mention the fate of the merge unit or the output structure, but remains largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that unit_id must be a corps but does not explain merge_unit_id's constraints (e.g., must be a same-type unit, cannot be a corps). Adds some value but leaves ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Merge' with the resources 'a corps with a same-type unit into an army', clearly indicating the action and target. It also specifies the combat strength bonus and prerequisite civic, distinguishing it from sibling tools like form_corps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states the requirement (Mobilization civic) and a precondition (unit_id must already be a corps), giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools list provides implicit differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.